Oh thank God, a thoughtful analysis of this movie. I gotta say, I was initially disappointed by this flick, but the online discourse surrounding it has actually been more frustrating than the movie itself for being so hyperbolic and cynical. It's as if everyone has jumped on the bandwagon and has to get in front of the mic and give their take on how it's the worst thing to ever happen to cinema, and it's so intellectually lazy it's actually gotten kind of exhausting to listen to. This certainly is the breath of fresh air I needed.
Have people lost faith in cinema? Are they right to? Is it wrong for film criticism to lose its curiosity? Alternatively is such criticism, no matter how cynical, necessary to force cinema to change? These are questions I don't concretely answer in this video but are worth raising for extra dicussion. Here is The Critical Drinker's video, if you wanted a link: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-G_k8cDLe-Kk.html
I saw the movie and I really disliked it... I think it is because I can see all the desicions that are made base on politics and not in art, also it does not make sence in many places and you can tell that they run out creativity and budget halfway thru the movie. I don't know what the drinker said, but honestly this movie shouldn't have been made. His female companion is a horrible character as well but... Everyone has their own take. What we can all agree is that it is insane to pay over 230M to make this thing
nice video.👍🏻 i would love to hear your thoughts on Amazon Good Omens and season 2 coming out at the end of this month? is that something you would consider?
@@elmaxidelsur I'm certainly not gonna argue against anyone disliking it, although I am now intrigued, what decision were made based on politics rather than art?
It reminded me of going to see the Rolling Stones in concert now, you remember how great they were in their day and you’re desperately hoping they’ll be somewhere near enough to rekindle the nostalgia and remind you of how you used to feel about them, but in the end, even though they’re not that bad for a bunch of geriatrics, you can’t help feeling that it was a waste of two hours and 70 quid, and there are much newer, younger and better bands you could have gone to see for half the price that would have been so much better. Sometimes it’s time to retire gracefully and let the younger generation create their history and legacy interest of desperately trying to cash in on yours. Or go into directing/writing/producing and help them.
For me, its impossible to look at the positive attributes of the film and not think that there's a VERY high chance they were put in there -last minute and very begrudgingly, because the original test version of the film went over so horribly [apparently, Bob Iger got so miffed at how bad it was that he ordered Kathleen Kennedy to 'unf@ck it'] According to original production leaks, Indy was set to die at the end [some versions even had him and his past self dying, thus erasing him from history] and Helena was supposed to become 'the new Indiana Jones'. And if those reports are true, then that means any positive stuff with Indy was most likely added in after the horrible test screenings, basically as a form of damage control. If anything, Helena punching Indy out to save his life should have come at the middle of the adventure, thus the story would end with her having developed into a more likable and sympathetic person from there [and maybe also have her reflect negatively on just how hollow and meaningless her life really is, compared to the life Indy has led. That would've been good] Also, and this is just a personal thing; but Phoebe Bridge has the most insufferable, punchable rat face I have ever seen on an actress. Not exactly an ideal casting choice for a character was was allegedly set to replace Indiana Jones
One good thing about the negative reviews is that it set my expectations really low. Expecting the worst I came out of the multiplex actually surprised that I enjoyed it as much as I did. It suffered from the cgi heavy action scenes in most modern action film. However, the final shot was perfect and left a big smile on my face.
Glad you liked it. Hope you like it enough to watch it more than once and that it works for you. I myself might watch it on streaming or what have you.
I saw the first one in the theater in 1981 and have been captivated by the Indiana Jones movies. Harrison's the man. I saw this one on the 4th of July and I liked it. He's 80. I don't expect the Indy of old just an old Indy trying. There were some things I felt were rushed or too compressed story telling wise, but I still enjoyed it and have been humming the Indiana Jones theme at work.
I dont get how every single person missed that part at the end where they get told the dial would ONLY EVER go back to that exact moment in the Roman Siege. Voller didnt make a miscalculation, it was never going to take them anywhere else
And its a nice little boost to Helena as a character. All the archeologists (Voller, Indy, even her own father) had seen it a mystical artifact of unlimited potential, whereas Helena (being a con woman) knew it was nothing but a "trick deck" to serve one purpose: bring reinforcements to Syracuse.
Slight correction, the calculations weren't wrong because they could never be right. The Dial *always* brings someone who goes through a rift to the Siege of Syracuse, it was Archimedes' attempt to get help against the Romans.
This movie wasn't anywhere near as bad as crystal skull and the ending genuinely surprised me. Just wished they'd spent the last third of the movie there and Indy stayed there, would have been a bitter sweet ending to the series. It could have been revealed that the skeleton in archimedes' coffin was actually Indy who was buried with the watch that helped his future self complete the dial.
I had a strong feeling while watching the ending that something like that was on the cutting-room floor because the suits intervened and said the ending wasn't happy enough.
I didn't like the film as much as you did, and I respect that. My argument is that it has been shown in recent films that one can return to an old IP and make more then just a "meh" to "fine" film. I would use Puss in Boots 2 (as a sequal to a over 10 year spinoff movie) and Top Gun Maverick.
Everyone seems to have missed the dialogue about why voller knew to go to Syracuse. When she translated the the square thing it said 'and go to such and such a place where Archimedes did such and such a thing'. And then someone says well that narrows it down to Syracuse or Alexandria. And then Phoebe Waller-Bridge says the correct answer is Alexandria because reasons. Then when Voller sees the boat not going in the direction of Alexandria, he deduces that this was a con and they must be going to Syracuse.
I guess the only reply for this is that Syracuse seems to be quite a large place. Does the film actually link the chase to a specific place? I can't remember. Perhaps it may have been better to make up a rocky out cropping or sandbar making them finding Indy simpler (and believeable). Maybe have the bad guys arrange for a former Luftwaffe pilot to pick them up in a flying boat then fly recon over the general location to find them? Just have Waller turn and order "Call Hans (or whatever), have him pick us up". Then the next time you see him they're alighting off the plane in Syracuse, turning to the pilot and going "Danke Herr Oberleutnant". It would have the effect of explaining how they got there, and draws attention to Waller's intelligence, that he planned for a situation where he might need fast over sea transport. It could at least minimize one of my problems with it, in that the bad guys seem to teleport in when needed. I didn't like the film as much as you did, and I respect that. My argument is that it has been shown in recent films that one can return to an old IP and make more then just a "meh" to "fine" film. I would use Puss in Boots 2 (as a sequal to a over 10 year spinoff movie) and Top Gun Maverick.
So, you need 30 seconds of him explaining to a subordinate why of all the places west of Greece they could be going, the most likely place is Syracuse. No, 30 seconds is probably too long. More like 15-20.
Still mad that Shia LaBeouf's character was just killed off like it was nothing just to make room for Helena Shaw. You can still have Mutt and Helena in the same movie. I mean Mutt had potential to be a good character and the next Indy but nope! They cut him off like he was nothing. So much for that plot point. *facepalm
I agree with you. I’m a Crystal Skull defender and love that film, but I’m not going to pretend that people were not disappointed with Mutt. Mutt had the potential to grow and become a lovable character, but instead they wasted him (literally) just so that Mangold could include Helena. I love Mangold, but Spielberg never would have done that. I wish Mutt and Marion were major parts of this film because there is an interesting story there.
I don't mind making room for Helena, I liked her addition and think it worked. I'm just not a fan of having him killed, when he could have been living his life anywhere else or lost in action in Vietnam. The final scene would have been even more wholesome if we got teased that he arrived at the apartment to show he cared, or word that he was found. Having him killed off felt overly tragic for the tone Indy's movies have, and a bit of a lazy effort to explain his inevitable absence, as they couldn't hire LaBeouf again. At least it contributed to giving the movie's theme more weight, which is my favorite aspect of the story we got.
He was so depressed in the end of the movie he wanted to be left in the past to die!!!! How is this not deconstructing and destroying Indiana Jones?!?!
ok, if we take that pov - who cares? You are not entitled to another movie, or it being good, or it no being "respectful". If its sucks, oh wells, move on with your life - raging on the internet about it makes you come across like a baby. And no, just sharing an opinion is not raging, but just sharing opinions is not what is going on - especially when you get all hysterical "destroying Indiana jones".
@@xBINARYGODx are you telling me how I should express my opinion? Are you a Nazi? My opinion is the Indiana Jones character is destroyed and because you don’t like my Opinion, based on examples from the movie, you are calling me a baby?!?! Does it hurt your feelings? Who is really being the baby here?
@@xBINARYGODxso we as the consumer are not “entitled” to a better movie or better writing or some effort? Are we to accept mediocrity and be happy with what we are given? That’s such a straw man argument. I refuse to subscribe to this line of reasoning. Disney is riding the coat tails of legacy IPs and they aren’t doing them any justice. I am entitled to my opinion and so are you. As consumers, we give feedback for ways to improve and grow. We should never be expected to just take what we are given and accept it just because.
Why should Indy have regrets? He's had a great life. He found the Ark of the Covenant. He single-handedly (well, almost) defeated an entire satanic cult. He became a captain in the Belgian Army. He met Teddy Roosevelt, Pablo Picasso, and Al Capone - AND got Adolf Hitler's autograph! And he traveled back in time more than twenty centuries! If could accomplish even a fraction of all that, I would be grateful.
I watched this video specifically because you challenged the Critical Drinker's take on the film in the title. I had already subscribed to your channel because I watched the video where you examined Alison from The Breakfast Club. Your refusal to be cynical or dismissive is refreshing. All the more so because it is so rare this century. Looking forward to seeing all your videos. I will see this movie primarily to end the series on a positive note. I wouldn't have known of that positive note without your review. Thank you.
Honestly, this isn't a terrible video. Personally, I'm not gonna see Dial Of Destiny, because I was never into Indianna Jones, but as someone who enjoys Drinker's content. I appreciate you actually approaching his arguments in a basic way and having a civil disagreement, instead of making another "CRITICAL DRINKER IS AN AWFUL REVIWER HE SUCKS AND IS A TERRIBLE PERSON" hate rant that I'm absolutely sick of. Not bad, you earned a sub.
Critical Drinker's more even-handed in his livestreams. There's been plenty of cases, like HBO's _The Last of Us_ and _House of the Dragon_ where he and MauLer went into them expecting them to be trash writing, but got won over by the quality of it despite their reservations. They got in heated arguments with their peers and fanbase over it even but they stuck up for the shows; "The writing is good; what do you want from me?" When Drinker says "this thing is as bad as i feared it would be", it isn't because he didn't give it a chance. I posit this whole point back on Hollywood itself; if you want people to give you the benefit of a doubt, _stop making the same mistakes over and over again refusing to learn._
@@SeasideDetective2 Or in cases like Rian Johnson, the writer is so preoccupied with the limitations and iconography of the genre their "subverting" that they never get around to organically _expanding the genre from within._ Like Tarantino with Reservoir Dogs; he knew that his "bank robbery movie WITHOUT the bank robbery being shown onscreen" shtick would blueball the audience; so he made sure to deliver on all the same arguments, drama, action, violence, tension, and time-crunch paranoia that you would expect from a crime movie just in unexpected contexts; so even if the movie is subversive and experimental, the audience is still getting what they showed up for. Folks like Johnson, talented though they may be, fundamentally miss this, delivering a mystery movie that actively punishes you for paying attention because it's not the actual mystery that interests him, but the superficial aesthetics of one. He doesn't deliver the goods, just an upside-down frosting display.
@@samwallaceart288 Sure, but Rian Johnson's upside down frosting display and constant subverting expectations is a LOT more fun to watch than whatever the hell that other shit that Disney era Star Wars was trying to do.
That's fine and all, but I still disagree with him on a lot of shit regardless and a lot of his logic doesn't add up for me or make a lot of sense. Which is, again, fine and all. People have different opinions on shit and see things differently. That's how it goes.
Great video. Love this analysis, where you fairly discuss the positives and negatives of the film. Really a breath of fresh air when some analyses just distill it down to just bad trash movie. Thanks for the content.
@@pchurch692I totally agree. That being said. That movie was a lot. Like. Some ideas were pretty good. Most wasn’t that interesting, then it’s gets insane imo. Which, not a great film. But I don’t hate it. Same with all Indiana jones movies. I don’t like it, but as a whole. But I don’t think it’s trash, it’s just. A lot
A lot of men get tired of the f-ist films. So, if they see one or two "you go, gurl" elements in a movie, they poo-poo the entire thing. Not really fair, but understandable.
Shut up. I sat through this with long time friends and it was the most depressing shared experience of our lives. And we've had hard lives. But, we wanted two hours of pure escapism and got a reminder of our daily lives and then got called names by the creators who made this for being critical of it and then get a reviewer like critical drinker who gives us the release valve and outlet and escapism www didn't get from this film and then you fucks got to criticize that and protect this released crap and a multi billion dollar studio. Awesome job. You're a top bloke. Cheers.
What's up with Disney and Lucasfilm with showing its heroes as broken, jaded and worthless... I kinda understand drinker on that part! I feels like it's a reoccurring theme in all of their movies nowadays...
I think their creativity has ended up in the wrong direction, where they are too narrow minded to actually explore interesting ideas. They keep chasing that one dream but never catch up.
It's a simple narrative to allow the character to grow throughout the movie and give the movie a three act structure, it's an easy way to do it when people are old,. It's why young people are commonly naïve and novices at the start of films and then grow throughout the film. It's a simple narrative device it's not Disney or Lucasfilm who created that. The drinker guy doesn't know much about anything so doesn't even understand to relay this to an audience, he just gets angry.
The thing is they want to cash in on the Nostalgia for these heroes, but they are now old men and having them be the same as they were 30 years ago would be silly, but that sweet sweet Nostalgia money....., so they go for the most basic plot idea you can have for old people "a bit sad and alone cause family and friends died and age prevents them from being what they once were". My response to it will always be the same, stop giving in to Nostalgia, watch the old stuff if you feel nostalgic, but don't give them more money for lazy ideas and then get offended because it's not what it was 30 years ago.
This movie was so bad , I was actually mad at spending the money. Good thing the air conditioning in the theatre was nice and there was only three other people in our small town theatre, they were chatty so we could be chatty.
It wouldn't blame anyone exactly, it's certainly too much for a professional film critic, in my opinion, but it can be hard not to be cynical in modern life. Sometimes there are things we should be highly critical of, it's just a shame if that kills off our curiosity
Can we just talk about that people listen to a guy whos channel is named after being a heavy alcholic drinker and people go "im going to base my opinion on this drunk angry guys views without watching it" in the words of Ncuti Gatwa "WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON HERE"
To me it all comes back to what you said in other videos, stories should be allowed to end and Indiana Jones was over after "Last Crusade". There was no need for more movies, but people who grew up on them, are now prime Nostalgia age and have money to spend, so they get made. To a degree Fans have themselves to blame, they asked for it in the past, well here's what you wanted more Indy.... I mean I bet you the only reason Indy's son died between movies is, because people HATED Shia LeBouf as his son in Crystal Skull, of course corporate will immediately try to appease fans, write him out and make it worse in the process. lol Basically all corporate heared was "we hate Indy 4", so they wrote out everything he gained from that story. Same with Star Wars, first people just wanted more of it, then they decided the Prequels sucked and didn't want those to be the last SW movies.... Making these movies has become studios reacting to what they think the audience wants from a franchise, which is never gonna work cause the audience doesn't really know either in most cases. Doesn't help that the world of movie reviews is oversaturated now and everyone has to scream in the most over the top and clickbait way possible to get their review noticed.
Yeah, I wish it had ended with the 3rd film. Film studios very much built this bad reputation and it's a hell of a hole to dig themselves out of. I genuinely think the colossal cost and seemingly low income of this film might cause a shake up. I didn't want this film, but if people are going to professionally review it, it'd be nice to at least show some curiosity to understand the film before judging it. You're right, criticism has become oversaturated and, ironically, is just as repetitive and shallow as any modern films are accused of being 😂
I agree with this comment 100% - That's my beef with Critical Drinker... him and his fan base are still reacting and gagging for endless remakes and soulless cash grabs from corporations... but they NEVER discuss new movies that don't follow that formula... It's always mainstream rubbish. They're free advertisement for movies they detest, rather than promoting movies that are new and creative.
I am amazed by the content you’ve made here and the way you give your review and weave it together-excellent work! And I’m regard to a statement you made near the beginning, I’m not cynical towards new films- I’m cynical over folks that don’t bother to be new. Reboots, sequels, continuations, spin-offs- Hollywood is canibalozing itself, and no one in the new generation, Dave maybe a handful, is allowed to create original comtent, and it’s sad that I can’t see anything that isn’t the faded, offbeat remake of memories long past. I’m making the se accusations not towards IJ films- if anything I find them at least better than a whole lot of other revamps- but I can’t get away from its participation in a trend that is pushing away from the heart of film- the creation of compelling stories that allow their creators the chance to shine. Don’t let Hollywood be your nostalgia dealer- support original content!
I very much agree, it is a shame and I'm kinda hoping the colossal failure of this movie is a wakeup call. I'm just also hoping for film criticism that seeks to understand and provide insight, rather than simply incite shallow anger. Both things are true in my books. I think you've summarised it quite well
I agree. I thought the film was ok. Helena is not a great charachter but she seems to have a lot of trust issues and that is the way she behaves the way she does imo.
Thank you for your insight! I agree with you on so many points! You brought up a good point about the scene where his niece knocks him out and brings him back home. It would have been so much more effective with a dialogue between stating why he should come back. It would have been his decision.
Yes, but even Indy had a fortune and glory phase in Temple of Doom. She just needs to grow out of it. And as Indy said, nobody memorizes thousands of pages just for money.
This is going to be an odd request, but there is a movie series called Persona 3 and there is a character in that series which I'd love to hear your take on. Makoto Yuki, the main character.
Imagine a character you very much loved and aspired to be, now imagine a new iteration of that character where they remove everything beloved about him and his major characteristics are his sad and depressed. Now repeat 🔁 this formula on your top 10 most beloved characters in cinema. Yeah that's how It feels. 1. The movie itself may have been mediocre but the way they portrayed Indy, removed any positive emotions I could feel towards the movie. Imagine trying to appeal to Indy fans by making a movie that not just cocks Indy but portrays him as sad, depressed and unachieving. Who was this movie even meant for. 2. What's fun and whimsical about an Indy movie where Indy is 3 steps away from commiting suicide and Indy's main side kick or partner seems determined to undermine him at every turn, you would think they would have paired him with someone with more emotional intelligence. Y'all seem to have forgotten that age is not what makes a hero or an adventurer. At this point, I'm two deconstructed heroes away from accusing Hollywood of ageism. One would think a life well lived would be a rewarding end not one full of despair and depression.
I really don't feel that about it, this is what I mean by a lack of nuance. He's not one step away from suicide, he wants to stay behind because he's already dying and, crucially, it is incredible to be in ancient Syracuse with Archimedes, it's the crowning achievement of a life spent chasing the past. He's sad, sure. They go overboard with it, his absolutely did not need to be dead. But paint him as underachieving? Useless? He's far more capable than Helena in this film despite being 70, there is still a spark of adventure, he is not bitter, still making jokes. I don't begrudge anyone disliking it but that doesn't mean the anger and criticisms aren't overblown and partly based in a cynicism towards previous modern movies
@@mylittlethoughttree They gave scenes that Indy in the past would've thought to get out of a situation to Helena in almost every case. Like where she tricked Voeller about the correct directions & her being the one to get them out of that scene on the boat. Which went nowhere cause Voeller caught up to them anyways. They made Indy annoyed by bugs.....bugs!!!! Did they not watch Temple of Doom. He's the one that gets captured & needed Helena to rescue him. Her character did everything possible to belittle Indy and we are suppose to like this character? C'mon man this film did more harm to the character of Indy than Crystal Skulls ever did. As stupid as that film was Indy still acted like Indy. This film had none of that and it was way WAY too long. The main problem i had with the film & many have the same opinion is that there was no need to portray Indy as a sad broken man after what he had went through. I say this cause another character had similar stuff happen to them but it didn't stop that character from still being a great character in the film. Do you know who that was. Sean Connery's character in Last Crusade. Henry Jones lost his wife & was estranged by his son but it didn't stop him from pursuing his passion. This was Luke Skywalker all over again & it just wasn't necessary at all. That is why so many are upset with the film & if you can't see through that than we saw different films. Also what the heck happened with the subplot of Indy being wanted for murder?
So, there are a number of movies that were critical and commercial flops when they came out, but since have aged well. John Carpenter's The Thing wasn't a disaster, but it had nowhere near the reputation it has today. And Heaven's Gate was considered to be the epitome of a flop, but it holds up surprisingly well today. My question is this...10, 20 years from now, will this movie be describe as "unfairly maligned" or not?
Critical Drinker is like a political party in that I know exactly what he’s going to say about a movie before I watch it just bc I know what side his on.
Thank you for a well thought out, well presented case that i 100% agree with. It is not only the drinker that is wrong but at least a dozen other channels who are all connected with each other. Their opinions were based on absolutely nothing but rumour and gossip but their stall was set out and now they have no choice but to double down to save face. Even to the point of telling blatent lies about the film in terms of what is said and what happens. I watched these channels leading up to this and as a massive fan (the first two are the far superior entries) was anxious to say the least. I was seriously entertained and seems i watched a different film. Yes ive no doubt if Speilberg and Lucas had been involved it would have been different but they weren't. It has its faults but its not the other films, nor does it claim to be. There are too many people (and a few on here) who cannot think for themselves or critique film objectively, shouting the same old lines, hiding and safe in numbers. As i said i was entertained and was never bored. Everybody has an opinion unfortunately the majority are wrong and instead of judging this on what it is, have gone into it based on previous Hollywood output and YT pundits, which shows more about them than the film itself.
It seems to me (and granted I haven’t seen the film) but a better way to portray this older Jones would have been to frame him as a man who has given his life to adventuring is having a hard time living his life now he has ‘given it up’ - more like a boxer who is convinced he still has one last fight in him. This would be more interesting if he still had a family and possibly grandchildren who might be in conflict with this idea perhaps urging him to give it up. In this way the film could be both his last hurrah a chance for him to prove he still has one last great adventure in him as well as a way for him to achieve closure.
Thanks for sharing your opinions, as it's always interesting to spot things that you genuinely liked from a movie or show that others didn't. I liked the fifth installment myself, it didn't hold a candle to the original trilogy, but was a definite step above the fourth film.
I totally agree. As a huge Indiana Jones fan I was set up to leave the theater, depressed, and even angry. I was pleasantly surprised. Indiana was not rated or made to look like a fool. It was not Helen his movie. Yes it had issues And seem to be patched together. But far better than crystal skull. Nothing like Disney Star Wars treatment of legacy characters. Go in with an open mind be entertained. I still like the drinkers reviews and will continue to watch him. But I think he was cynical about this one and watched it with bias.
I mean, even if Indy 5 is fine, the problem is, how do you build that trust back up from what Hollywood has done those past 10 years or so? How do you counter that cynicism with some form of ... evergreen optimism, always looking around the next corner for something good, only to continually have your hopes dashed once again? I'm not saying it's not right, and that you can't take any given film based on its own merit, but ... at what point is it okay to just give up and walk away? If Hollywood continues in the trend, how can we hold our expectations towards it, when they continually disappoint?
Theoretically easy, even if it will take time. Get away from "everything has to be a franchise" and start making fresh movies again. Of course that is easier said than done, because "fresh" stuff doesn't bring in the guaranteed audience and when it fails, it fails much harder.
I absolutely do not begrudge anyone giving up on cinema. I myself barely ever go. Professional film critics, though? What's the point of reviewing anything if you're not going to be curious about it first? I think there's a difference between review and judgement
@@mylittlethoughttree That's part of the reason why I like the Drinker more in Livestream when he has more people to bounce ideas off of, including Chris Gore and occasionally Paul Chato, each of whom have a very advanced film and television background, respectively. Yeah, it can be argued that he goes into it with his own prejudices, but he does have other people that he does interface with who can give him perspectives that he may not always see. I think the main underlying problem is that cinema nowadays has just become too predictable, in a sense. In a way, it became "safe" a while back, and people stopped reaching out and trying new and innovative things at the expense of maybe missing the mark. And that comfort allowed the cinema to languish, and the quality began to suffer across the board. And we're left with the cinema landscape that we have now. Edit: Also, thanks so much for the response. Happy to talk with you about these kinds of things.
@@CharlesB147 Hollywood really wasn't that much better before, we just tend to remember the best movies, and forget the bad. They have always made these bland, safe movies with broad appeal but shallow content. The really good movies have always been the exceptions. There has been somewhat of a shift with higher quality content moving to series format instead though, it's become easier to tell a longer, more complicated story in a series format, so the really good storytellers prefer it
They had to meet Archimedes for the dial to be completed with a 20th century watch in the first place if you caught that bit? So it wasn't really a coincidence but something that had to happen for all the events in history leading up to that point to happen.
Yes, the movie is better than skull… that’s no brainer! My two issues with the movie was the wrong co-lead, Renee Wilson would have been a better co-lead, by switching side when she them killing people. And the ending is wrong, he as nothing to go back to, leave him behind, studying history in the making.
I think it's kind of a tricky spot, dealing with any of these blockbuster reboots. The past several years have increasingly turned me off of pretty much anything that the main studios are making and I see new movies less than ever. Admittedly I have seen some good ones though and I know that there are other good ones I haven't seen because I lose interest from just seeing a trailer that feels too "hollywood". The problem is the more cinema makes bad calls and movies we didn't need (if we need any lol) the more I want to stop supporting those big studios, even if a specific movie might be relatively decent. Maybe this is just an artist's take but I think about how most of the movies people do like a lot and talk about are tied to a specific person (the director and/or writer) and people talk about that person's artistic journey and style. Obviously even the best movies are way more than just one person, but I wonder if what that really reflects is people's desire for art that has a vision, an idea that someone understands and is passionate about making into something. That can be lost with a big studio, especially making a reboot, feeling like they're making it as a board room business decision and then finding people to put it together for them. I'm not sure what my point is with this long comment, but I am a lot more likely to see a movie that feels like someone had an idea and needed to make it reality. Things like Indiana Jones may be actually decent but respectfully I couldn't be less interested in them without being given a reason why artistically it's new or interesting.
I'm looking forward to the video games. Kids today will have no idea how simplistic and frustrating the 1982 Atari "Raiders of the Lost Ark" game was. The "giant" tsetse fly I remember in particular.
Whereas The Drinker's take is often too harsh, I often think yours is too soft. The truth is definitely somewhere in the middle, so I'm glad to see a spectrum of opinions. Thanks for sharing your viewpoint.
The producers themselves have personally endorsed every fear Indy fans have expressed and the audience have decided not to see it on account of their spoken amd written words. That's why the audience have mostly stayed away. Your review is good but it won't bring back the audiences, especially when the producers have spent an extra 100 million in re shoots to ensure the audience stayed away.
Oh no, I'm not trying to bring back audiences at all. I think the cynicism is understandable... I think professional criticism however should be more nuanced and curious than the general discourse there's been
I'm far too tiny a channel for that 😂 and also useless at debates. People don't realise how slow, rambling, and all over the place my recordings for videos are before I edit them down
Excellent video! I made one the other day about Critical’s video, saying many of the things you said in your video, if less eloquently, on my other channel, Positronic Hypersonic. Thank you for making this video!!
I'm altering my comment... i understand your point of view... but for the most part Drinker is right on the money... the original intention that Kathleen Kennedy had for this movie was to send Indy back in time, kill him off so that he never existed and Helena would replace him as the new Indiana Jones, which is the reason why the ending feels out of place.. the powers that be forced kennedy's hand that you can't embarrass and kill of Indy like you did with Han Solo and Luke Skywalker. Why people aren't going to see this movie.... is that enough is enough. They very easily could have made an amazing movie with Indy and Short Round going on one final adventure... but despite the changes made it's still insulting and distasteful that a legacy character once again gets shown up exactly the way drinker described... i do respect your take, but for those of us that have been with Indy since 1981 ( I was 14)... enough is enough Lucasfilms... your time is up, this will without question be the biggest bomb in the history of cinema with nothing else even coming close...( it needs to make about 800 million to break even after delays, reshoots covid postponements on top of the orignsl 300 milion dollar budget)...
Ah hey! I have massive respect for someone who can go back on themselves and open their mind to something they have dismissed or judged without first being curious! (As I do think the drinker fails to do with this movie) but I absolutely agree with people's lost faith in hollywood, they did that themselves. I too am very, very much hoping the colossal financial failure here prompts a shift of sorts. However I also think professional film criticism should aspire to do more than repeat the same angry points, plaster them onto new films, without any nuance or effort to understand the film they're condemning. To suggest Helena is some perfect girl boss who shows up a broken, useless Indy, is just not accurate to this film. Seeing Indy as destroyed here strikes me as a surface level view, built out of what was expected (as a result of Han Solo I guess, I never dared see those films, myself). That's my interpretation. This film is basically "fine" and the sheer vitriol towards it is a result of the reputation hollywood has built up from other recent movies. A vitriol I understand, and see as Hollywood's own fault. I just expect more nuance from actual film criticism, but that's me
Not saying the Critical Drinker is wrong about everything, but to see him as some sort of credible authority on films/shows is nothing other than forced delusion. The guy capitalized on anti-sensationalism, along with others like Angry Joe. I can't really get behind that theme. I like when people find the diamond in the rough sometimes. Keeps me from thinking that all this bad shit that keeps coming out can't be fixed with some heart and elbow grease.
While the Critical Drinker is known for negative reviews and it is kinda his thing, he also likes to point out films that he likes and deserves praise and recognition.
But even then I’d argue that those reviews are just as sensationalised because most of the positive reviews he presents are on comparison to the ones he doesn’t like, regardless of how tenuous the connection.
I don't understand how these "critics" can be taken seriously when they don't watch any movies past 2010( other than popular 70's-80's movies i.e. Star Wars, Alien, etc.) They seem to not understand that movies are affected by the times they are made in, yet they whine that movies shouldn't be political, when movies have always been political, since the inception of the medium.
I think it really shows this guys deep seated feelings when he thinks an 80 year old man being able to run around in chase scenes and do things men a quarter of his age can't do, as not breaking is immersion, and for him the unrealistic bit was the young women also being able to do that.
I think the version of the film you are describing isn't really there. At least, not enough. Sure there's bits and pieces to support it, but it is way too broken up by soulless corporate badly written parts in the way the Drinker suggests. If the film you see this as had been there it would have made for an interesting rumination on aging and purpose as the character of Indy is concerned. But I think you are failing to mention an important point: that film would not be the kind of film people go to an Indiana Jones movie for. They have come to see a light, silly, over the top, joyous romp, This movie though fails to adhere to any concept properly.
Very much so, it's jumbled and messy, for which the tightness of the metaphor near the end really surprised me. It's caught between Harrison Ford really passionate to tell a story about aging, and a silly adventure, and it struggles to balance that. An embarrassment of a film with nothing good that is an attack on men and paints women as perfect, though? Nah, it's just a sloppy film with decent ideas for the characters, not perfectly executed. Absolutely fine for people to dislike it. A film critic to attack it without first trying to understand it, though? Criticism needs curiosity and nuance, even if it is highly negative
@@mylittlethoughttree On that last bit we fully agree. Sadly it is misssing even from most professional critics these days, or so it seems to me. But we live in the days where "culture wars" are made to feel all important and nuance is in short supply. I appreciate it's probably not going to happen, but it would be highly interesting to have you and the Drinker sit down and do a little Siskel & Ebert together. Few things are as interesting as having two intelligent people having a civil disagreement.
I like Critical Drinker's positive reviews, and I like his ideas for rewriting things he thinks are awful. I'm not so keen on his basic rants, but cynicism sells 🤷♂️
@@whittenaw A vast percentage of the Critical Drinker's schtick is ranting against "wokeness", though he often manages to wedge some good criticism of narrative technique too it's always blasted through the filter of "pandering to the woke brigade".
They're awful movies, which only people who follow mainstream culture, or are ideologically inclined to like. You can predict with certainty what happens because they HAVE to follow a certain formula and make the exact same point. It's tedious, but as a movie lover, I want to hear about movies that are good... so it's frustrating that all CD does, is slag off bad movies... yup, I know they're bad, don't need to be told it a billion times, but I wanna indulge in a good movie!
I have a hard time with some blockbuster movies currently because I don’t feel the writers think critically. It honestly feels like people around them are just saying yes to all ideas good and bad. You know when your friend is struggling from a break up and he starts to spiral. It’s your job to help reduce that spiral not just say yes. This culminates in bad character arcs lazy plots. It’s why I haven’t enjoyed a movie in theatres since Dune. While it’s a remake, there was care and thoughtfulness in how to present that world, that story, more importantly the characters. I don’t disagree with you, being cynical and dismissive for all aspects without acknowledging positives moments does not make for a good review or a good mindset. For that reason, I agree with your criticism of the criticism. What I will add, I won’t be seeing this movie. I won’t be seeing a lot of movies. The care, the critical thinking, The passion doesn’t seem to be there. Furthermore, abusing nostalgia without a build up or passion for it doesn’t work. So I tend to find myself agreeing with critical drinker more then other reviewers or critiques. I sometimes feel they have to try and play nice and I don’t see what they see.
Yeah there is a very good reason people have lost faith, and it is costing film studios big time now. I don't disagree at all. I hope they change. However I find a review like his own such a lazy, close-minded, reductive way of reviewing a movie that seems more caught up in searching for the pre-conceived agenda so he can get angry about it, rather than actually first being curious to understand the film or its meaning. For a professional critic, I find that such a shame. Good, scathing criticism would first seek to understand before ripping something to shreds, not just decide what the film is and look for the evidence to match your decision
@@mylittlethoughttree thank you for the response and for making the video. I didn’t mention that in my previous comment, which I should of. I think it’s possible he is just catering to his audience, understanding that a lot of people are simply frustrated with the current state of movie making so following down that road for views. Which blends very nicely into your comment about laziness or blanket close minded approach. I find your last couple of sentences to be very true in life as well. I have spoken to my gf a lot about this in order to try and get her to see the positives in the world even if people may not be doing things perfectly. In other words seeing the good in things and opening her mind. I did this as carefully as I could in order to help her not judge people so negatively so quickly while also understanding that opening a close mind isn’t easy. This has turned out to be extremely positive for her and her mind with things she thinks she knows a lot about. Sometimes it’s not about what you know, it’s about what you don’t know. I work as kinesiologist, routinely with people who have given up after a car accident. I had a great mentor outside of school who I learned from for 3years before i worked in the field. The ability to empathize with people, seeing the world through their eyes while also having the skills to address the physical concerns has allowed me to help change peoples perspectives on their positions in a hope to give them a reason to not give up. I really have enjoyed your videos and your approach it has been helpful in my quest for helping people as I wish I had help growing up. Thank you. Ps please excuse the typing errors. I’m on a touch keyboard iPad mini. As Im working out of town.
I appreciate your assessment of Indiana Jones 5 and for bringing up a couple examples of Critical Drinker's poor excuse of criticizing this film. I like this film a lot when I went there with my dad, and he liked it too. I just wished they could've done it better, for example, having the giant Nazi villain guy falling over the bridge without the key in his pocket and the kid has to struggle getting out of there quickly. Granted, it didn't hold up the same level of praises as Raiders of the Lost Ark and The Last Crusade, but the fifth movie did leave a good enough taste in my mouth from beginning to end and is considered superior to both the second and fourth Indiana Jones film. Bonus: Watching Indiana Jones punch Nazis in the face while confronting supernatural elements always brings a big warm smile to my face.
Went to see this film in two minds but t walked out of the cinema quite satisfied. There were some boring parts and people walked out. However for me the ending made up for it
Just watched the intro, and I'm going to fully watch the video, it certainly makes me more interested than the movie itself... Just wanted to quickly add that already saying that Indy 5 "is fine" is a problem in it's own right. Nowadays you go to the cinema and you spend 20-25 bucks as a minimum, between ticket, pop-corn+beverage, 3D glasses, etc. Multiply it by the number of people in your family and an evening at the cinema becomes quite hefty, even with just 3 people as it is in my case... Why should I pay for a movie that the best I heard was a "is fine"? Of course it is entirely subjective, I did pay for controversial movies like "The Flash" and "Elemental", but I knew what I could expect and that was entirely fine for me. And I consider both to be not near as bad as some pretend them to be. Quite sorry they bombed actually 😞 In the case of Indy 5, I pretend there's the original trilogy only, as the Krystal Skull was already too bad to even try to remember it... so why should I spend money I go to work for, on a 5th movie that I know would not add anything to my experience and enjoyment of the franchise, and instead potentially ruin it?
I'm a big fan of Critical Drinker and Mauler, but I appreciate your constructive perspective. I do think that "Hollywood" has earned a fair amount of cynicism that is directed at them, the way they take old and beloved IPs and ruin them. As a jaded fan of these properties I think it's understandable that people like them go in with a little bit of a bias. While i do think that this bias can make people miss or disregard redeeming qualities at times, there are examples like House of the Dragon or Last of Us, where they went in just as jaded and pessimistic, but the sheer quality of the writing and the acting managed to win them over. So I do think they are fundamentally fair reviewers / critics, but there are certainly times where they cross the line between fair although jaded criticism and cynicism. It's important to stay humble and to call things out that we think are going wrong (whether in media or in media criticism)
That's good to know, I agree Hollywood has very much earned the cynicism, I just think professional reviewers should seek to at least be curious about the films they're judging. I haven't watched many of his videos at all. I remember seeing The Last Of Us one and very strongly disagreeing with his dismissal of Ellie as whiny and, again, made to seem like a female better than the elder male counterpart. I really, really think he misunderstood her character completely there, and why she is the way she is, in place of falling into pre-conceived ideas. The example of this video and that one do make me think he has a dangerous habit for falling into his judgements without proper curiosity, but I hope that's more just a weakness of his than an overall absolute for his approach to all media. We all fall into our predetermined judgements from time to time, I certainly have. It's just a shame when it's too often and so very bitter
@@mylittlethoughttree Personally I agreed with Drinker's assessment based on the first 3 or so episodes. I did not particularly like this version of Ellie at that point, because she was way more sassy and "bratty" than game Ellie was. But you have to understand that it's not just that either. In the background loomed the fear of what they would be doing going forward. TLOU2 has not been received well by many fans of the first game because of the way it treated Joel as a character (think the same "destroying and disrespecting beloved characters with terrible writing" issue that is facing many movies and series). Because of that background, any change to Ellie's character that made her feel more in line with TLOU 2 (where she is much darker and angry and ruthless, and also "dominating" Joel who is more timid and unsure of himself) as opposed to how she and her relationship with Joel should be portrayed based on TLOU 1, made us instinctively worried about where her character (and as a result the entire season) were headed. The main fear was that they would be retconning TLOU 1 to be in line (and justify) TLOU 2. Especially by making Ellie darker and more disturbed, as well as making Joel's choice at the end more black and white evil and selfish, rather than the morally complex scenario that they ultimately ended up faithfully depicting. So in the end it was all good and impressive, and I think Drinker would agree, I know Mauler does at least. I myself also do take issue with Drinker sometimes as he tends to drift towards cynicism a little bit more than some of his "associates". But I personally think it's coming from a place of good intentions, we all want good stories rather than bad stories, celebrate good characters rather than tear them down. It's just too easy to drift into cynical territory if we surround ourselves with all these bad developments. To be fair, Drinker does his fair share of positive or neutral videos as well, but as far as his cynicism is concerned it's probably a case of the old saying "stare into the abyss and the abyss stares back into you", where he is sometimes too focused on something like the "strong , independent female character of color replacing traditional white male character" trope for example - true as it may be in a number of cases, but if you are in that mindset it's sometimes too easy to keep seeing it everywhere even though that's sometimes unfair. There are certainly bad things happening in our media and society, but the responsibility also rests on us to adhere to and promote reason over retaliating through the same politics and extremism.
@@holysecret2 yeah I massively disagree with the assessment of Ellie as bratty or sassy. I feel like anyone who has ever spent time with 14 year old girls knows exactly what they sound like, knows any kid around that age is trying to explore ideas of independence, testing the boundaries of parental figures, very, very keen to try and find things they're better at. It is a perfectly realistic depiction and for Drinker to just dismiss her a whiny I think shows such a lack of empathy and interest to actually understand a character. If you're going to critically review something, he should bother to do that, not just talk her down as whiny because he's seeing what he wants to see. I'm not sure he understands people sometimes use things like wit as a defence, either, that people can be very, very keen to hide their vulnerability. Those kind of things bother me not because it's a bad take, I don't mind that, but it's a style that does not promote empathy into the world, and makes me wonder if people who watch that video then go into interactions with 14 year old girls now thinking they're bratty, too? That's the route of cynicism that leads them into being like the teacher character from The Breakfast Club, for example. Cynicism is a dangerous path when it overpowers empathy. I think if he was really interested to be curious about Ellie, he would have found a lot of her scenes really, really sweet. So in that sense, I found it a positive change. Game ellie was too grown up in the game. Arguably not intelligent enough, as kids will surprise you with sudden bursts of intelligence, caught up in childish assumptions, but game ellie was too emotionally stable, too just...clean and likeable to the general public. Ironically enough, show Ellie is a far less clean, perfect, depiction of a child. I won't talk about TLOU2 though because I never played it so I don't know. I once heard a plot summary and thought it sounded like a cool, challenging idea, but who knows how well it was executed?
@@mylittlethoughttree I hadn't thought about it that way, that's a fair and interesting take, that this more realistic depiction of Ellie arguably actually elevates her character in terms of believability and relatability, I can agree with that. However, I don't think it's fair to be assuming that someone like Drinker or his viewers would feel the same way about real little girls being bratty and sassy as they did with show Ellie. The Last of Us show is meant to be an adaptation, and generally fans desire and appreciate an adaptation for being faithful. So seeing Ellie and her relationship with Joel changed like this is something that you need to come to terms with at first (and most people did over the course of the series, including Drinker). It's got very little to do with sexist or misogynistic viewpoints or attitudes. I hope that you can understand that rather, it's mostly a) a fan's wish to see a faithful adaptation (and also the worry where these changes to her character would stop, or alternately what they were motivated by or where they were leading towards), and b) the instinctive association of a changed dynamic like this with other less pleasant examples of beloved masculine heroes/characters being paired with a young female sidekick who somehow seems to be more dominant, smarter and more resourceful (think Luke Skywalker in TLJ, Shaggy in Velma, Picard in Picard, Hulk in She-Hulk, Joel in TLOU2, etc.). That sort of a dynamic is not a bad thing by itself, there are great stories with the same sort of character dynamic. The issue is that these listed examples seem to intentionally cannibalize / diminish the established male character for the sake of the new character, rather than introducing that new character with skillful writing and in good faith, while respecting the established character. The emotional maturity and calmness of game Ellie is something that I always liked about her character. In light of this and in light of the history with these other IPs, seeing Ellie be (relatively, compared to the game) more bratty like this and seeing her make fun of or one-up Joel in some scenes in the first few episodes immediately raised some red flags for some of us, that she would continue on this path, being elevated and more dominant at the cost of Joel as a character. That's why it did take some getting used to (and convincing, on the side of the show) that this reimagined Ellie worked equally well, and was actually well-intentioned. And I think that (being the case) is something mostly everybody agrees on, and that's why most people ultimately appreciated the show along with its deviations, including Drinker & friends.
@@holysecret2 beautifully written comment which I suppose in many ways illustrates the point of this video. How, getting caught up issues from other stories that bothered us, we start looking for those same faults in new stories, start jumping to the same conclusions. It's not so much I think people would literally look on teen girls as annoying and bratty because of Ellie (although teen girls are regularly dismissed as that) so that's a fair response. It's more my personal belief in the need for empathy, really. There's never enough of it in the world and film criticism is a surprisingly wonderful way to demonstrate empathy to try and understand characters and stories beyond your own experiences. I think, intentionally or not, all good criticism encourages that, and encourages a general open-minded curiosity for the world that is much needed. So my concern is that criticism that's refusing to do that, that's making sweeping judgements based on pre-conceived ideas, encourages the opposite. It's not to say we don't all make that mistake sometimes, I certainly have, but if I'm sitting down to properly review something, it should be avoided as much as possible. I am a bit of an idealist in that way but eh, unfortunately I think this video has performed too badly to reach him, and I think I've worded it too badly to make my argument clear enough
In all fairness though I think Drinker goes waaaaay too hard against what he deems “the message.” I kind of fell off because I realized that it made me sound like an intolerant a hole by spouting his talking points. There’s nothing wrong with representation. Where I think he gets it right though is that a lot of times it doesn’t serve the story. Like race or gender swaps just for the sake of false “inclusion.” A lot of times it seems more like tokenism than anything.
That's mainly my concern. There's nothing wrong in criticising that kind of thing...but to do so vitriolically without any nuance, time and time again, to the point you're going into films now just looking for signs of this preconceived agenda, things to be very angry about, rather than first showing curiosity towards a film? You can hit on a faint nugget of truth and still have a really close-minded approach to the world, sometimes it makes you more close-minded because you feel you've already reached a conclusion...and I just don't like professional criticism that promotes that kind of approach. We have to be curious and open and eager to learn things, not just box them into our pre-established worldview
I saw the title of this video and just HAD to watch it. Not least because it involved two youtubers I really appreciate. Haven’t seen the movie and won’t. Made the mistake of watching Crystal Skull and won’t make the same mistake again. I side with David Lynch: learn to let your most beloved stories go. It will never be the thing again that made you love it decades ago.
I don't disagree with that, altogether does it mean professional critics have an obligation to be absolutely livid at every single, stupidly expensive blockbuster that flops? 😆 (I'm being flippant there) my problem isn't people disliking the film though, it's professional film criticism that goes in close-minded rather than curious. You can absolutely dislike it, but at least seek to understand it first
@@mylittlethoughttree drinker came into the movie expecting disappointment - he went out of the movie disappointed. This movie makes crystal skull seem decent.
The thing is, it's really hard to make a movie that everyone thinks is amazing, it is much easier to go for a safe movie that most people will consider "fine". The more expensive a movie is, the broader it has to appeal to make a profit, so I will rarely expect an expensive move to be amazing, because movies with broad appeal rarely are. LotR would be the main exception for me, but that movie was a huge financial gamble. A cheaper movie can take more risks, they have the same earning potential as expensive movies if they are a hit, and it's not a big deal if it flops. Not to get all political, but capitalism is the underlying issue here, it's the chase for the highest profit margin that incentivizes making broad, safe movies, and this is mainly an issue with the studios, not the writers/directors.
Remember when you first saw Raiders of the Lost Ark? You were young, strong, and full of optimism. Now look at you, you've changed, maybe things haven't worked out the way you hoped, and you didn't necessarily live happily ever after. It's called being a person, not a cartoon character. This film had some awkward patches, but Indy's portrayal as an old man wasn't one of then, and if anything it strengthens his character because it humanizes him.
"This is the YT feud I've been waiting for." ...is what I'd be saying if I hadn't unsubscribed from CritDrinker for all his exaltations of misogynistic, conservative values, Propaganda actions he half-presents as "criticisms" of movies.
People forget Raiders of the Lost Ark was based on cliff-hanger serials of the 40s and 50s, from Lucas' childhood. At the time, 1981, it WAS a "politically correct" revision of the original serials: Karen Allen (Marion) played a strong independent woman who opened her own bar, and out-drank the customers (alcoholism was portrayed more lightly then, oh wait, so does "Critical Drinker!"). Jones was an academic, not a football hero or Canadian mountie, Sallah is generally treated as an equal to white characters... I could go on, but I'll just say old men in the early 80s might have made similar comments about the original Indiana Jones as he does the new films. Time marches on, but old dudes make the same tired complaints. As far as the tone and muddled plot, that was definitely in the cliff-hangers, these films are firmly in a crowd-pleasing mass entertainment tradition. www.msn.com/en-us/movies/news/the-classic-cliffhanger-serials-that-helped-inspire-indiana-jones/ar-AA1dgj91
I personally concur with Drinker. His delivery and choice of words are undoubtedly exaggerated, but I agree with the overall message. This film was truly terrible for me, but especially the ending. The only bit I thought was decent was the opening sequence on the train.
I think the key to this is the fact that, as you say, none of the important aspects of story and character development are done very well. in such a case, there's a lot more room for interpretation because the filmmakers didn't do the work of making things clear. and because of the VERY OPEN political agenda of kathleen (the force is female) kennedy as well as disney execs openly discussing their intent to push a queer agenda, there's a lot of folks unwilling to extend to disney (in particular) the benefit of the doubt when something is open to interpretation. they have, after all, stated on the record, their intent to act in bad faith (in regards to respecting the nature and character of the originals to pursue their own political agenda) so you can't fault the critical drinker too much for... believing what they say. and so, we live in an era now where benefit of the doubt will not be extended. the worst will be assumed. and the only way to overcome that is to not only behave in creative good faith but also execute with such skill that it CAN'T BE MISINTERPRETED.
This is a really good summary! There is one other way things can change, though: film critics with influence promoting a curious approach to life. Quite obviously we need better films too, but we also need reviews that can think critically before they attack a film, or sometimes praise a film. They need to not contribute to a reductive narrative. Absolutely to criticise but to do so with more basis than just general cynicism. I think we'd need both, otherwise there's a danger of many people getting lost in that narrative, and not being satisfied until films pander to their desires (not that I'm saying the drinker wants that, but some people would and he has influence that could better shape a discourse)
@@mylittlethoughttree "They need to not contribute to a reductive narrative." unfortunately that applies more so to the paid journalists of mainstream media. it's interesting that you think critical drinker has so much influence but his is but a drop in the bucket compared to all the critics in the mainstream media that contribute to the phenomena of wildly ecstatic rotten tomato scores of 98% while the viewership reviews come in at 43%. if anything, critical drinker just serves as the counterbalance antithesis for the political agenda of critics going the other way. you correctly call for critics to lay down their arms for the sake of genuine, intellectually honest criticism. but in a world where any movie that features a queer or race swapped black or cartoonishly "strong woman" character will get rave reviews simply by virtue of that fact - by the entirety of the film review establishment - THEY have to stop first.
@@jinchoung you see that does sound like getting swept up in a narrative to me. Films and mainstream media are woke. That's too simplistic and cynical a conclusion. I think a) good reviews do still exist, regardless where they might sit politically and whether or not I agree and b) that's then just getting lost in broadstroke sensationalism on one side with the argument that "everyone is sensationalist anyway" the critical drinker has millions of viewers he could reach with curiosity. Who cares whether mainstream media is good or bad, we don't need to position ourselves in some war against that, balancing it out, that surely contributes to the problem of a very divided culture because everyone only talks in flat extremes and is refusing to even try and bridge a gap. There's a lot that needs to change if we want a better world but surely a good start is being the positive change within ourselves, using our influence to add that into the conversation? I just find it too easy to get super angry about something in a surface level way, then sit back and get angry again whenever the problem isn't fixed. I think we can do more than that.
My favorite thing when people criticize a movie is when they describe a scene completely wrong and then use that as an example for why it was bad. Yeah, that made up scene or dialog you just described would be really bad, probably why that's not actually how it happened in the movie. It's like at the end of Jaws when the sheriff says, "Hey shark, now I'm going to shoot that canister and blow you up!" Talk about terrible writing! And that happens throughout the film, though I will provide no other examples to support that claim.
Good on you for making this video. I watched CDs extremely negative review and certain other negative review videos and I thought to myself, you know what sod it, ill make up my own mind and not let these "RU-vid" critics sway my mind. Born in the 70's I have seen the lot from the beginning, Star Wars, Indiana Jones, all their cinema influences from Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers to Kurosawa Samurai films, old Westerns and Film Noirs. So feel reasonably qualified to make a sound judgement on what I am watching. With that in mind I took myself to see it and actually rather enjoyed it. It's not trying to be a Kubrick movie, it was, stupid and had action and adventure...some story I even like PWB character. She doesn't irk me to the degree she seems to irk CD et al. I feel they are way over reacting about her. I have a grip on the fact movies need to change and people get older and so do "Childhood" heroes. Just as I did and my life changed along with them. I'm fine with that and the film. Did it need to be made? Probably not. Did it have issues? yes, but then so have all the other films, Should things have been left at the ending of The Last Crusade? Perhaps. If I want something a bit more cerebral I'll stick on something by Werner Herzog and not bitch and whine about Feminist agendas etc.... ;-)
The reason I think there has been pushback to PWB's character is that she doesn't come off as particularly believeable. One major part of this is how she talks, bascially that she communicates in quips and clever one liners, constantly. So she basically comes off as an actor mugging for the camera rather then one who actually embodies the role, know what I mean? For example, we can look at Tony Stark, who has that part of his personality, the part of himself that he likes to project to people around him, then we get moments where he pulls it back and we see Tony Stark the person. Theres an absolutely great arc in Avengers where he seems to dismiss the notion of being faced with a situation where a person has to make the ultimate sacrifice in order save others or turn the tide of a conflict. Cap, being the soldier, who has probably witnessed others, and indeed himself, make that decision, points this out to him, and Tony lightly pooh poohs it. Its believable, Tony is a very intelligent guy, he's confident that in that in that situation, he would be able to think of another solution. Cap gives him the hypothetical of an officer throwing himself down on a mine in order to save his men (which was actually documented in WW2, during the D Day landings an officer threw himself down on the last few yards of a cleared route through a mined beach and happened to detonate the last mine in order to get his men off the beach as fast as possible). Tony scoffs and quips "I'd go around it". But in the films climax, Tony finds himself in such a situation, where he has to physically has to guide a nuke through a portal and aim at the villain's base ship, knowing that he could very well end up dead on the other side of the universe, but he does it anyway. The little look he shared with Cap when they resusitated him said a lot
I would just like to add I find her believable when you pay attention to her very clear defences. Perhaps the film was too subtle with that, or perhaps the general cynicism towards the idea of younger female characters coming in beneath the male heroes, meant people weren't really curious to understand her. It's probably a bit of both, it definitely lacked execution in a lot of places but I still find it believable
@@mylittlethoughttree I get where you're coming from. I'll just say I went in to the film looking to give it a chance, and her character just grated on me. I guess its a personal preference, I've always had a subconscious unease that people who're constantly joking are hiding something. I can differentiate between such people, and those who use humor to cope, but when its constant, nonstop, I feel edgy. I admit it may not be entirely rational. Its just me, and the writing for her character just triggered that part of my mind.
Let’s be honest there is a lot of crap being produced by these big studios recently, approximately 10 years or so. We were spoilt in the 80s90s with timeless classics from Lucas, Burton, Landis, Carpenter, Spielberg, Zemeckis, Cameron and Hughes. Then a bit later Jackson’s masterpieces…, A lot of these modern commentators/ analysts/ reviewers just want that quality to return but I fear that time has past and there’s also a sizeable slice of nostalgia attached too! Why do most 20/30 year olds prefer the SW prequels over the objectively better original films? Nostalgia, they were the new films for these kids.it’s almost impossible to create something new that matches your childhood favourites but it is possible. I didn’t believe I could love any group of films more than the OG Sw movies, Peter Jackson showed me it was possible.
The final true analysis of how good the movie is, or how satisfying or popular, will be the final box office. If it's deemed satisfying, good word of mouth will increase its takings. If not, it will continue its current tracking.....or worse. But ultimately, it will be obvious whether a majority agrees with you or not by the money. Be ready for the outcome.
It was alright, but kinda bland and heartless. The punch at the end was the worst part...went against the whole spirit of what the series was about and insulted Indy.
I'm not even halfway into this video and this review is rife with inaccuracies. Take this review with a grain of salt and don't discount the opinion of The Critical Drinker, especially given the fact that the vast majority of online reviewers have also lambasted this movie.
There is a simple thing that prevents his ilk from ever giving this movie a shot; it is Disney making a movie from an old IP. Giving them a shot would break their little narrative that Kathleen Kennedy is some supervillain that actively wants to ruin your childhood. Admittedly Disney as a company is evil, but not for the reasons they spout off in their reviews
I listen and watch The Critical Drinker take from time to time. He can be a bit hyperbole on his takes. I tend to agree with some aspect of his takes and disagree with others. Pretty typical for me on just about anyone. I have a few people on youtube I like to watch for reviews and they very from takes often enough. I enjoyed the new Flash movie but understand it has flaws and others will dislike or hate it. Which is fine. We can all agree to disagree to an extinct. Haven't seen Dial of Destiny so its hard to comment on the movie. Don't plan to go and watch at the theaters but will stream it one day. Also. Killing Mutt? That just feels weird/wrong. The movie just seems low grade, to mid.
First of all, I just kind of found this movie boring. Can't really put my finger on why. I just wasn't entertained by it like I was the others. Second gripe I have is that..in the interest of an arc. By the end of the movie the character should always be in a different place that when they begin. Indy was clearly in the same place in Syracuse that he was in the beginning of the movie. And if all it took to bring him back was seeing Marion, then the entire quest wasn't necessary. It means the adventure didn't do anything to make him feel he was worthy again. That being said...the rest of the movie was fine. It wasn't a bad movie. Just way under par compared to the first three and I even think a little below KOTCS in entertainment value. Even though KOTCS had losts of issues too. This one is definitely least entertaining on my list for sure.
Fine was a very generous way to describe this movie. The only way it can be considered fine is if you had no expectations or memory of the originals. It's not a bad movie when compared with nothing, it's absolutely terrible if you compare it to its predecessors.
The Crystal skull was like a senior citizen before the dementia gets to them; old, mostly useless, but overall the same person they've been their whole lives. Dial of destiny is like the equivalent of what happened to Stan Lee in his final chapter; lost, sad, full of regret, and being robbed and ridiculed by the people who are "close to him"
@@mattburton2114 Most of Indy is still there, he's still a quick thinker in action scenes, especially for his age, he's still resourceful and smart, and his motivation for adventure increases during the movie They could have toned down his sadness at the start bit, and I wish they gave him more of the classic witty dialog, but people changing throughout their life is common, especially if they get hit by some hard life events, it's not inconsistent with his younger version, they are plausible changes There's plenty of things to critique the film for, but seems like a lot of people just want Indy to be a perfect, flawless character that never changes, that's not very interesting storytelling, it'd make his character shallow (not that this movie was particularly deep, but that's not the point). I don't get why it's so difficult for people to see a character they like have flaws or go through a tough time, do they expect all action movies to be male power fantasies?
As a kid I loved the TOMB RAIDER video games and enjoyed the Jolie movies. I also loved the THE MUMMY movies. But I have never liked Indiana Jones. I just don't understand those who love the OG Indiana Jones movies. Indiana Jones to me has always been creepy, boring, annoying, a waste of potential; the films have the same yikes on trikes factor for me as the James Bond films.
I think the negative reviews are justified. I went into this hoping that the bad press was critics being angry and bitter, but 20 minutes into this I realised they were spot on. Its a just a boring movie, its and empty, hollow vessel that has no heart, no soul, which is what a lot of Disney's output seems to be in recent years. I used to love disney movies, you could count on there being a heart warming and inspirational message, but now their movies and TV shows are more preoccupied with ticking boxes and because of that the film making has lost its soul and sense of naturalism. But I dont agree with the witch hunt that seems to be brewing with regards to Phoebe waller bridge. I mean Helena is an unlikeable character, fair enough, and she performs ridiculous stunts that nobody in their right mind can buy that she capable of doing. But as an actor you can only do the job thats scripted and I think to come after her and vilify her isnt fair and she doesnt deserve that kinda crap. All in all though the movie is a lifeless, empty dud that makes the kingdom of the crystal skull look like The Godfather
I have followed The Critical Drinker for a long time and he has become a victim of his own success. People tune into him to hear his vitriol towards Disney. He does believe the movies aren't good but I think he dials it up to cater to his audience. That doesn't mean he is deserving of the targeted bigotry he receives though. He doesn't dislike a film because it caters to "The Message," he dislikes when it is shoehorned in at the expense of a cohesive story.
I can't say I know enough about him to judge myself, but if what you're saying is true, surely then he's, ironically enough, falling victim to the same mistakes as modern cinema: built up a cynical reputation due to ham-fisted, lazy ways of expressing his message? It's no wonder people would dismiss his views the way we dismiss modern films, if it is always so exaggerated. Perhaps, like film studios, it'd be worth changing approach I absolutely don't think there is a shoehorned agenda in this film though, I really, really think he's failed to look at it beyond pre-conceived ideas
He’s basically a troll that knows he can make money spouting negativity. I kinda laugh at his idiocy and often disingenuous narrative. Don’t take him seriously
I agree, I thought it was fine, I really enjoyed it and wish I had saw it in the cinema. I'll be taking drinkers criticism with a grain of salt moving forward, just like every other film critic.
The critical drinker really doea talk shit now, he cant even wait till hes seen the movie now and puts half a dozen videos trashing it before its even released.. Indy 5 wasnt great but it was good. His success has gone to his head, he even wears sunglasses indoors!!
I watched my beloved dog pass away in horrible pain, after being bitten by an Australian Eastern Brown Snake. It was more enjoyable than watching the Dial of Destiny.
It isn't the worst film ever. Not by a long shot. You'll never convince me this film is worse than, say, The Room, Manos, or Birdemic. It's not even bad for an adventure film. It's just bad as an Indiana Jones movie. None of us wanted to see Indy become Marcus Brody in his own film. And that's kind of what he is here. If Helena and Teddy were the only focus of this film, with Indiana Jones not involved, it would have been better. Yes, the realities of getting older are grim, especially if you've had a vibrant and exciting life. But its the one trick pony here... Indy is a shell of who he once was... and that's realistic... but that's not why we bought tickets to see him. As a Gen Xer, Indiana Jones was to me what the movie serial heroes were to George Lucas. Indy was larger than life and amazing, so he was the perfect person to take us on these exciting journeys. Seeing him as a broken down old man who can do maybe a tenth of what he could in his prime -- it's like seeing Batman getting beat up by a common street thug. Its depressing.
